From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-46860-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12631 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2019 14:19:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 12610 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2019 14:19:51 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:4.85, 26022019, 26.02.2019, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit
X-HELO: mircat.net
Received: from mircat.net (HELO mircat.net) (81.9.105.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:19:49 +0000
Received: from [84.47.189.78] (port=44473 helo=[172.27.105.179])	by mircat.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-SHA:128)	(Exim 4.85)	(envelope-from <dms@mircat.net>)	id 1gydaD-000OAU-3W; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:19:45 +0300
Subject: Re: Is nexti confused by pushq?
To: David Griffiths <dgriffiths@undo.io>, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>, dwk <dwks42@gmail.com>, GDB <gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <CA++j6c4bKPiWgYsSp2ajPLrJmv4wQ6Fb_Z=nXfs7TTOjzAqKRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPkwjGtoLAPg6dnPOp5fe9-dqFDerhmATESu_wZaUtOOQOp4hA@mail.gmail.com> <20190226073236.GD10887@embecosm.com> <20190226101245.GA1496753@host1.jankratochvil.net> <CA++j6c7=KNZgErDbEyEi81MUAVwYKeDC8dfPxGT_w=EBqUzNsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@samersoff.net>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <2ba972bc-9e4f-c1ac-fe93-786b44e3ae3c@samersoff.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:19:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA++j6c7=KNZgErDbEyEi81MUAVwYKeDC8dfPxGT_w=EBqUzNsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: dms@mircat.net
X-Authenticated-As: dms
X-SpamProbe: GOOD 0.0000018 e61f3645d4004c8f743922aea0c5b4f9
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2

David,

On 26.02.2019 14:50, David Griffiths wrote:
> Ok, so in my case this is generated code with no debug info (Java JIT
> generated) so does that mean I shouldn't attempt to use nexti? (I've got
> other issues which probably preclude using nexti anyway but just curious)

On my experience with Java JIT (C2) produced code, it's better to avoid
using nexti.

If you do it programmatically, you can try to mimic nexti behavior in
some cases by analyzing instructions ahead and setting breakpoint where
appropriate.

-Dmitry

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 10:12, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:32:37 +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>> Of course, this doesn't solve the problem for you, but at least you
>>> know what's going wrong now :)
>>
>> To make it clear the debuggee has wrong/insufficient debug info, its
>> .eh_frame/.debug_frame there should annotate the push (and pop)
>> instructions.
>>
>>
>> Jan
>>
> 
>